: 1. W.S.M. is, I believe, a unique hybrid of state socialist traditions and various anarchist ideals. It produces, at times, policy contradictions, such as the statements 'We do not argue for armed revolution' (post 3084) and 'our declaration of principles pecifically states that we can use the control of the states armed froces' Sorry, it specifically include a mention of the armed forces in its clause about changing teh state from an instrrument of repression into and instrument of change, most of us do not want nor see the need to use teh repressive characteristics of teh state, but for my own part I can't see anything wrong with wanting to disarm small dangerous groups of reactionaries.
(post 3090). Like anarchists, W.S.M. claims to repudiate hierarchy (last post), yet like state socialists W.SM. requires that 'once a vote has been taken, you abide by it' (post 3076)---without recognizing that minority/majority dichotomies are hierarchal. Like anarchists,
I seem to have mentioned a thousand times teh idea of maximising majorituies, rather than taking the simple majority on a vote, and trying to reach consensus, however, if I take part in a vote, it is beholden of me to accept teh result if I lose, otherwise I must bahave in a dictatorial and hierarchical manner myself.
W.S.M states that '[i]t would be for the workers of teh world to decide how to divide up their resources' (last post), yet like state socialists W.S.M. makes sweeping assumptions such as that 'communal swimming pools' (post 3090) will replace everyone's private ones.
Now hang on, I have consistantly tried to avoid giving any blue print of socialism, but when pressed I gave one suggestion for how it MIGHT be. You pressed me over the matter, I gave an IMHO. ANd BTW I see no contradiction between those two statements above, if thats what teh workers decide, then thats what they do.
Your proposition that a global revolution can occur without centralized organization, or without considerable geographic inter-class conflicts, is, I believe, untenable. I grant that W.S.M.'s 'principled' refusal to
Why cannot the workers of tehw orld organise democratically to attain their revolution- this is just bluster, dismassal of arhguments without counter argument.
commit to specifics makes for popular agitation (consider your
We do, and I have committed to specifics on our plan for teh revolution, but we will not commit to speciifcs on teh nature of socialism, beyond some generalised recognised ideas about democracy and free access to teh goods of society.
assertion ((last post)) that '[f]or teh very rich [standards of living] may go down and up'---which is it?), but I maintain actual global revolutionary action without specifics would only create anarchy (in the worst sense).
When the time for revolution comes specifics can be drawn up by the workers, however it would be dictatorial and presumptious and stupid of me to draw up plans now for a revolution that may not come for years, people have the nouse to know what they are about.
I applaud your tenacious faith in 'a biological propensity towards...sociability'
I regard it as more than an obviousness- human beings cannot function without community, even capitalist society works by co-operation.
(please see my remarks on the concept of a 'fairness gene' in this post), but cannot countenance your leaving a task as important---or as complicated---as world socialism (world-wide modified human behavior) to 'propensity' alone.*
I never mentioned a 'fairness' gene, merely that folks can work out from teh basic chategories of self and other, extraplotating from their own experience, whether something is 'right' (fair/pleasant) or 'wrong' (teh opposite), and understand how to relate to one another, it is through ideologies of otherness that injustices of society can by carried on...
: 2. Chomsky (as metaphor). Chomsky is a very popular leader of the Left today. One reason, I believe, is because he criticizes the many things about capitalism that are conspicuously indefensible while avoiding the less popular task of proposing specific policies to amend indefensible current practices. This is little more than traditional
Again, I think there is a matter of principle going on there, in that its not up to him, but to all of use to propose a remedy, his remedy is 'get involved', whilst I'd agree that that may not be enough, I suspect he is tryuing to avoid becoming a 'leader'.
opposition politics, and Chomsky is often on the lecture circuit telling people what they already think. (Consider Skinner's observation that 'it is probable that our enjoyment [of literature] comes in large measure from the fact that the literary work says what we, the reader, tend to say.'(1))
Hmm- I'd say that has a part to play in teh enjoyement, though it si a reductive statement, I would add things like re-enforcement of self identity (and group Identity), gratuitous enjoyment of erotic matter, and teh imaginative play of desire(I'd rank desire and imagination above confirmation of previously held thoughts...)
: As far as 'principles being a priori part of human biology' goes, there is long tradition of asserting that 'man' is 'innately' selfish and aggressive, and Chomsky here suggests that certain aspects of 'human nature' are indeed immutable---without considering that phylogenic behaviors, like ontogenic behaviors, are shaped by contingent variables and without considering that 'some phylogenic behavior may have had an ontogenic origin.'(2) ('Black box' critics of behaviorism may find it odd that behaviorism posits that all behavior originates with the individual, not with groups...) To claim that cooperation is 'innate' while aggression is 'learned,' or that aggression is 'learned' while cooperation is 'innate,' is to enter into speculative value judgments (language games) that have little bearing on the salient issue, which is: to change what human behavior can be (ontogenically and phylogenically) changed for the better.
What, as far as I mam concerned, is at stake here is the idea of humanism, of a innate value in single human biological entities, and tehir relation as active particpants in teh structure of society, rather than the passive receptors of ideology, as beloved by so much of post structuralist theorising (foucault for one). Without a biological propsensity for society, we could not have environemntal determination of humanity, but also, if tehre is a degreee of commonality, of unbiversiality through biology then some of the enlightenment project may still be valid.
: 3. More on Chomsky. Chomsky's original claim to fame was his famous attack upon behaviorism in 1959.** His review of Verbal Behavior has been one of the most elaborate straw men ever put forth in an academic periodical. His indiscriminate references to 'manipulation drives' (p. 40) and 'response' (32) demonstrate that Chomsky attributed to Skinner's (radical) behaviorism the primitive and incompatible S-R psychology of Pavlov; his criticism that the behaviorist 'cannot at present show' lawful activity in all areas of behavior (30) was inconsistent with with his own admission that 'present-day linguists cannot provide a present account of these integrative processes' (55); his criticism that Skinner extrapolated from animal behavior to human behavior (26) was hypocritical considering Chomsky's predilection for deriving universal grammatical laws from primarily English samples; and (finally) Chomsky's repeated (35, 37) habit of pulling quotes out of context demonstrated his own excessive bias.
Erm, Chomsky got famous for his theories of deep structure and surface structure, for active and passive language and for his theorising of teh universal generative grammar (the so called chomsky revolution in linguistics). I am fairly convinced by teh argument through lack of data for langugae acquisition, and through teh sinmple fact that langugaes are translateable, with only biology being teh constant factor. Plus other reasosn.
: : : One reason why small communities---employing the science of behavior---have a better chance of succeeding than large-scale attempts (of what is essentially group behavior modification) is because the (contrived, immediate) reinforcements can be regulated---and monitored---with greater accuracy and greater alacrity than reinforcements in huge, diverse populations where actions 'ricochet' many, many times before consequence.
: would demonstrate the bi-directional view that I hold...plus I hope the Skinner quote '[i]n the design of his own culture, man could thus be said to control his destiny' would assuage any fears of falling back on S-R Pavlovian reductionism...
My main experience is with post-structuralist types of environmental determinism, that seem to lack a concern for indiviual biological experience, and a commonality of the human condition.
: However, your rejoinder:
: RED: [A] large scale movement has more oportuniy to re-inforce its value system upon subjects, and it has plenty of room for these values to find expression in daily life. When you make socialists you expect teh peoepl to go off and be socialists.
The, your terminology 'reinforcement' comes through widespread cultural values (which is something you often ignore, IMNSHO)- re-inforcement comes through people being in an environemtn from hirth or in most of their daily lives, where a specific set of values are held- it does not require any specific agency of enforcement for said values.
: 4. I am going to pass on answering your last post point by point. One reason is that I feel your contradictory positions allow you a latitude that prevents any possible conclusiveness in our exchanges; you can take an anarchist position when I examine your state socialist position, you can take a state socialist position when I examine your anarchist position... Another reason concerns your references to Marx---or your lack of specific references; when you say, Marx had this-or-that position, you put me in the time-consuming position of pulling out citations and quotes to clarify or disprove your assertions (in Marx's name) when it really is your 'burden of proof' to match your assertions (attributed to Marx) with appropriate, matching citations from Marx...
I don't have any texts to hand, and I take long enough writing tehse damn posts without going to hunt down the quotes.
: 5. I wish to emphasize the 'minority view.' In small communities, consensus is a possibility; in a global state socialism, consensus would be an impossibility. (Muslim men contra American women...) I am concerned with what happens to those who vote, lose the vote, and then are expected to 'abide' (as you put it) with the vote. My influence is Rawls, of course. Would you, in designing a society, yet not knowing your position in that society-to-come, risk a chance that you might be a minority member when you design a society in which minorities are expected to 'abide' by the decisions of the majority? W.S.M. has done little, for me, to make clear---or appealing---the fate of the anticipated global minority...
I will say again, for teh most part votes will be on a small scale running local life, unless they are of a matter of public importance (like the use of local resources) they probably will not affect minorities,a nd so people will be free to live how they want, but also all votes would be on a basis of trying to gain maximum consensus, and free access to teh democratic process. Without class there cannot be marginalised perpetually ignored sections of society, merely differences of opinion on specific issues, teh aim and values of socialism would be towards consnsus, and not battering minorities down.
: * If such a 'biological propensity' exists, why has socialism been so difficult to achieve in the many attempts of the last two centuries?
The common answer would be that for most of human history humans have lived in a co-operative way.
